Original PDF Flash format 1056103-bulletin-juvenile-transfer  


1056103 Bulletin Juvenile Transfer

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
J. Robert Flores, Administrator
August 2008
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Juvenile Transfer Laws:
An Effective Deterrent to
A Message From OJJDP
In an effort to strengthen the sanctions
for serious juvenile crimes, a number
Delinquency?
of States have enacted laws increas-
ing the types of offenders and offens-
es eligible for transfer from the juvenile
court to the adult criminal court for trial
Richard E. Redding
and potential sentencing.
Beginning in the 1980s, many States
adult correctional facilities has increased
These laws have lowered the mini-
passed legal reforms designed to get
(Redding, 2003), reaching a peak in the
mum transfer age, increased the
tough on juvenile crime. One important
mid-1990s and then declining somewhat
number of offenses eligible for trans-
reform was the revision of transfer (also
(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006) due, in part,
fer, and limited judicial discretion,
called waiver or certification) laws (Grif­
to the decrease in juvenile crime. An esti­
while expanding prosecutorial discre-
fin, 2003) to expand the types of offenses
mated 4,100 youth were committed to
tion for transfers.
and offenders eligible for transfer from the
State adult prisons in 1999, representing
Among the principal goals of such
juvenile court for trial and sentencing in
1 percent of new prison commitments
transfer laws are the deterrence of
the adult criminal court.1 These reforms
(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). Sixty-one
juvenile crime and a reduction in the
lowered the minimum age for transfer,
percent of these youth were incarcerated
rate of recidivism, but what does the
increased the number of transfer-eligible
for person offenses, 23 percent for property
research indicate about their effec-
offenses, or expanded prosecutorial dis­
offenses, 9 percent for drug offenses, and
tiveness in addressing these ends?
cretion and reduced judicial discretion
5 percent for public order offenses (e.g.,
Several studies have found higher
in transfer decisionmaking (Fagan and
weapons possession) (Snyder and Sick­
recidivism rates for juveniles convict-
Zimring, 2000; Redding, 2003, 2005). In
mund, 2006). Transferred juveniles, partic­
ed in criminal court than for similar
1979, for example, 14 States had automatic
ularly those convicted of violent offenses,
offenders adjudicated in juvenile
transfer statutes requiring that certain
typically receive longer sentences than
courts. The research is less clear,
juvenile offenders be tried as adults; by
those sentenced in the juvenile court for
however, in regard to whether transfer
1995, 21 States had such laws, and by
similar crimes (Bishop, 2000; Kupchik,
laws deter potential juvenile offenders.
2003, 31 States (Steiner and Hemmens,
Fagan, and Liberman, 2003; Myers, 2005;
2003). In addition, the age at which juve­
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
This Bulletin provides an overview of
nile court jurisdiction ends was lowered
Services, 1996). But, they may be released
research on the deterrent effects of
to 15 or 16 years in 13 States (see Snyder
on bail for a considerable period of time
transferring youth from juvenile to
criminal courts, focusing on large-
and Sickmund, 2006), although very
while they await trial in the criminal court
scale comprehensive OJJDP-funded
recently, some States have reduced the
(Myers, 2005), and many youth incarcerat­
studies on the effect of transfer laws
scope of transfer laws (Bishop, 2004), and
ed in adult facilities serve no longer than
on recidivism.
one State has raised the age at which juve­
the maximum time they would have
nile court jurisdiction ends from 16 to 18.
served in a juvenile facility (Bishop, 2000;
It is our hope that the information pro-
Fritsch, Caeti, and Hemmens, 1996; Myers,
vided in this Bulletin will help inform
In the wake of these legislative changes,
2001). Seventy-eight percent were released
public discussion and policy decisions
the number of youth convicted of felonies
from prison before their 21st birthday,
on the transfer of juvenile offenders to
in criminal courts and incarcerated in
and 95 percent were released before their
adult criminal courts.
Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp
rates for violent crime committed by 14­
Types of Transfer Laws
to 18-year-olds in Idaho after the State
implemented its transfer law in 1981. In
While the age at which juveniles can be transferred to the adult system varies
comparison, between 1982 and 1986, the
across States, most States will transfer youth ages 14 and older who have com­
arrest rates for similarly aged juveniles
mitted a serious violent offense. Typically, there are four categories of offenses for
decreased in the neighboring States of
which juveniles of a certain age may be transferred: (a) any crime, (b) capital
Montana and Wyoming (which retained
crimes and murder, (c) certain violent felonies, and (d) certain crimes committed
transfer procedures similar to those Idaho
by juveniles with prior records (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). (See Griffin, 2003,
had before 1981). In a similar time-series
and Snyder and Sickmund, 2006, for recent comprehensive lists of States, recent
analysis comparing juvenile arrest rates
transfer statutes, and statutory requirements.)
between 1974 and 1984 in New York and
There are three types of transfer laws, all of which are referred to in this Bulletin:
Philadelphia, Singer and McDowall (1988)
legislative (automatic transfer), judicial-discretionary (judicial transfer), and
found that a 1978 New York State law that
prosecutorial-discretionary (prosecutorial direct-file). Each type defines the kind
automatically sent violent juvenile offend­
of juvenile offender eligible for transfer under the statute, typically specifying cer­
ers to criminal court (by lowering the
tain offenses and minimum age criteria. Most States have two or three coexisting
ages for criminal court jurisdiction to 13
types of transfer laws (Redding and Mrozoski, 2005). For example, 40 States and
for murder and 14 for assault, arson, bur­
the District of Columbia have judicial and prosecutorial transfer statutes, with the
glary, kidnapping, and rape) had no deter­
prosecutorial statutes often applicable only to older and more serious offenders
rent effect on violent juvenile crime. The
(Sanborn, 2003).
law was applied widely and publicized
Automatic transfer laws, currently in effect in 29 States (Snyder and Sickmund,
extensively in the media.2 Although limited,
2006), require transfer of a juvenile if statutory criteria are met (for example,
evidence available at the time suggested
alleged commission of a violent felony by juveniles 14 years of age and older).
that juvenile offenders in New York were
Under these laws, the case either originates in criminal court, or originates in juve­
aware of the law (Singer and McDowall,
nile court and is then transferred to criminal court. Judicial transfer laws, currently
1988).
in 45 States and the District of Columbia (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006), vest dis­
On the other hand, the results of a multi-
cretion with the juvenile court judge to decide whether a juvenile should be trans­
state analysis for the years 1978 to 1993
ferred after the prosecution files a transfer motion. Prosecutorial direct-file laws,
suggest that adult sanctions, under cer­
currently in 14 States and the District of Columbia (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006),
vest the discretion with prosecutors, allowing them to decide whether to file
tain conditions, may have moderate deter­
charges in the juvenile or criminal court. Twenty-five States also have reverse
rent effects on juvenile crime (Levitt,
waiver laws (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). In a reverse waiver jurisdiction, the
1998). Controlling for demographic and
criminal court judge has the discretion to transfer the defendant back to the
economic variables, the researchers com­
juvenile court (or to treat the defendant as a juvenile for sentencing purposes).
pared the juvenile arrest rates for violent
crime across States as a function of each
State’s minimum age for criminal court
jurisdiction to the relative punitiveness of
25th birthday, with an average of 2 years, 8
evidence suggests that transfer laws have
its juvenile and criminal justice systems.
months of time served on their sentences
little or no general deterrent effect.
Punitiveness is defined as the ratio of the
(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006).
number of incarcerated offenders to the
This Bulletin reviews all of the extant
number of total offenders in each State
research on the general and specific
system for different age groups. Re­
General and Specific
deterrent effects of transferring juveniles
searchers found relative decreases in
Deterrence
to adult criminal court (Redding, 2005),
youth crime as youth reached the age of
focusing in particular on recent large-scale
criminal responsibility, but only in those
The nationwide policy shift toward trans­
studies on specific deterrence funded by
States in which juvenile and criminal
ferring juvenile offenders to the criminal
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin­
justice systems differed significantly in
court is based largely on the assumption
quency Prevention (Fagan, Kupchik, and
severity of punishment. This suggests that
that more punitive, adult criminal sanc­
Liberman, 2003; Lane et al., 2002; Lanza-
significantly more punitive punishments
tions will act as a deterrent to juvenile
Kaduce et al., 2005). It also identifies gaps
meted out by criminal courts may deter
crime. In terms of specific deterrence—in
in the field’s knowledge base, notes chal­
youth from offending once they reach the
other words, whether trying and sentenc­
lenges for further research, and discusses
age of criminal responsibility.
ing juvenile offenders as adults decreases
whether effective deterrence may be
the likelihood that they will reoffend—six
achieved through transfer.
Two multistate studies reached a different
large-scale studies have found higher
conclusion. Examining data on all felony
recidivism rates among juveniles convicted
General Deterrence: Do
arrests in the State of Florida between
for violent offenses in criminal court when
Transfer Laws Prevent
1989 and 2002, including each offender’s
compared with similar offenders tried in
Juvenile Crime?
age and arrest history, Lee and McCrary
juvenile court. With respect to general
(2005) evaluated the effect of turning age
deterrence—whether transfer laws deter
Two studies conducted in the 1980s found
18 on criminal offending. This study found
any would-be juvenile offenders—the
that transfer laws did not lower juvenile
that young people did not lower their
picture is less clear. The studies on this
crime rates. Jensen and Metsger’s (1994)
offending rates upon turning age 18,
issue have produced somewhat conflicting
time-series analysis for the years 1976 to
suggesting that the prospect of adult sanc­
findings; however, the bulk of the empirical
1986 found a 13-percent increase in arrest
tions was not a deterrent.
2
Steiner and Wright (2006) examined the
Ruck, and Koegl, 2001) finding that only 22
when potential offenders are made aware
effects of prosecutorial transfer laws in
of the 53 juvenile offenders interviewed
of substantial risks of being punished,
the 14 States that had such laws as of
thought that they would receive a serious
many of them are induced to desist” (Von
2003.3 These States enacted their laws at
punishment if caught.
Hirsch et al., 1999:47). However, research
different times (between 1975 and 2000),
with adults suggests that the severity of
Seventy-five percent of the transferred
thereby providing data over different
punishment appears to have little or no
juveniles interviewed by Redding and
historical time periods. Using time-series
effect on crime rates (Pratt and Cullen,
Fuller (2004) felt that their experiences
analyses, researchers compared monthly
2005; Robinson and Darley, 2004), perhaps
in the adult criminal justice system had
juvenile arrest rates for violent index
because potential offenders typically have
taught them the serious consequences
crime (homicide, rape, robbery, and
much more information about the likeli­
of committing crimes. As one juvenile
aggravated assault) for each month in the
hood of being arrested than they do about
explained, “[Being tried as an adult]
5 years before and the 5 years after each
likely sentences (Von Hirsch et al., 1999).
showed me it’s not a game anymore.
State enacted its prosecutorial transfer
Studies show that the general public
Before, I thought that since I’m a juvenile I
law. In addition, 2 States were selected as
knows little about potential sentences and
could do just about anything and just get
controls for each of the 14 target States.
tends to underestimate their severity
6 months if I got caught” (Redding and
The control States resembled the target
(Robinson and Darley, 2004; Von Hirsch et
Fuller, 2004:39). Seventy-five percent of
States in size, location, and juvenile arrest
al., 1999). In addition, offenders tend to
the juvenile offenders said that if they had
rates, but implemented no transfer law
discount punishment as an uncertain
known they could be tried and sentenced
during or near the relevant time period.
future event, whereas the short-term
as adults, they may not have committed
The study found that transfer laws had no
rewards of crime are more powerful pull
the crime (Redding and Fuller, 2004).
general deterrent effect. Only in Michigan
factors (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985).
did juvenile crime decrease after the State
In sum, the limited empirical research
“[F]uture contingent costs may be dis­
enacted its prosecutorial transfer law; in
on the general deterrent effect of juvenile
counted less, if their magnitude is suffi­
the other 13 States, juvenile crime either
transfer is somewhat inconsistent and
ciently great and their likelihood of being
remained constant or increased after the
does not permit strong conclusions. The
incurred increases. Severe sentencing poli­
enactment of the law (see also Risler,
bulk of the evidence suggests that transfer
cies thus might possibly have an impact if
Sweatman, and Nackerud, 1998).
laws, at least as currently implemented
coupled with much higher probabilities of
and publicized, have little or no general
conviction” (Von Hirsch et al., 1999:48).
A few researchers have interviewed juve­
deterrent effect in preventing serious
nile offenders about the effects of transfer.
Although studies of juvenile offenders are
juvenile crime. Substantial further
Before the widespread expansion of trans­
few in number, they suggest that arrests
research is needed to examine whether
fer laws, Glassner and colleagues (1983)
and sanctions have deterrent effects. For
transfer laws have—or, under the appro­
reported the results of interviews with a
example, Mocan and Rees (2005) exam­
priate conditions, could have—a general
small number of juvenile offenders in New
ined self-reported delinquency data (for
deterrent effect. In particular, it is impor­
York, who said they had decided to stop
drug selling, assault, robbery, burglary,
tant to examine the following questions:
offending once they reached the age at
and theft) for 14,942 adolescents from
which they knew they could be tried as
◆ Are juveniles aware of transfer laws?
the 1995 National Longitudinal Study
adults.
◆
of Adolescent Health. They compared
Do they believe the laws will be
county-level arrests (of adults and juve­
Researchers in another small-scale study
enforced against them?
niles) for violent crime reported in 1993
(Redding and Fuller, 2004) interviewed 37
◆ Does this awareness and belief deter
with county-level juvenile crime rates in
juvenile offenders who had been charged
criminal behavior?
1995, thus providing a measure of the
with murder or armed robbery and auto­
deterrent effects of arrest rates on subse­
matically tried as adults in Georgia. The
In conjunction with such research, there
quent juvenile crime rates. They found
study examined their knowledge and per­
is a need to implement and evaluate well-
that the arrest rate had a general deter­
ceptions of transfer laws and criminal
targeted public awareness campaigns on
rent effect on the crimes of drug dealing
sanctions. Georgia had undertaken a pub­
the State and local levels designed to
and assault; for each additional arrest,
lic awareness campaign to inform juve­
apprise juveniles of the legal conse­
there was a 3.6-percent decrease in the
niles about the State’s new automatic
quences of committing serious crimes
likelihood that juveniles would sell drugs
transfer law. Nevertheless, juvenile offend­
(Redding and Fuller, 2004). Public aware­
and a 6.6-percent decrease in the likeli­
ers reported being unaware of the law;
ness campaigns have proved effective in
hood that they would commit an assault.
only 8 of the 37 youth knew that juveniles
reducing adult crime in some contexts
According to Mocan and Rees (2005:344),
who committed serious crimes could be
(e.g., Elder et al., 2004; Johnson and
“this pattern of results runs counter to
tried as adults. Even among those who
Bowers, 2003).
claims that at-risk young Americans are so
knew about the law, none expected that it
present-oriented that they do not respond
would be enforced against them for the
Potential Deterrence
to incentives and sanctions.”
serious crime they had committed. Many
It is possible that transfer laws resulting
thought they would only get light sentences
in significant adult sentences might have
Similarly, Smith and Gartin (1989) found
(e.g., a sanction of probation, boot camp,
general deterrent effects if would-be
that being arrested reduced recidivism
or a several-month stay in a juvenile
juvenile offenders were made aware of
among youthful male offenders, particularly
detention facility) from the juvenile court.
such laws and if the laws were widely
first-time offenders. A 2003 study of seri­
These results are consistent with those
implemented. With respect to adult
ous juvenile offenders incarcerated in a
from a Canadian study (Peterson-Badali,
offenders, studies “plainly suggest that
maximum security facility found a negative
3
relationship between their sentence
offense severity, case length, sentence
prosecutor has much information about
severity and self-reported intent to reof­
length, and court), as well as for time
the youth’s background. Therefore, it is
fend and a positive correlation between
residing in the community, researchers
less likely that the youth retained in the
their self-reported intent and the number
compared offenders charged in New
juvenile justice system had lower recidi­
of offenses they actually committed after
Jersey’s juvenile courts with offenders
vism rates due to variables other than
their release. Researchers found evidence
charged in New York’s criminal courts
those controlled for in the analysis, such
that these offenders made “some explicit
under that State’s automatic transfer law
as the youth’s mental health status or
calculations about the advantages and
(under which 16 is the age of full criminal
amenability to treatment (Bishop and Fra­
disadvantages of committing future
responsibility). Both areas shared similar
zier, 2000). The study controlled for seven
crimes” (Corrado et al., 2003:197).
demographic, socioeconomic, and crime-
variables (race, gender, age, number of
indicator characteristics. Thus, the study
referrals to juvenile court, most serious
Criminal sanctions will only have deter­
provides a comparison of recidivism rates
prior offense, number of charges, and
rent effects if potential offenders: (1)
as a function of whether cases were
most serious charge). Researchers found
believe there is a significant likelihood of
processed in the juvenile or criminal
that the rearrest rates were higher (0.54
getting caught, (2) believe there is a sig­
court, without the sample selection prob­
versus 0.32 offenses per person, per year
nificant likelihood of receiving a substan­
lems inherent in studies comparing cases
of time living in the community) among
tial sentence, and (3) consider the risk of
within a single jurisdiction where prosecu­
transferred youth. Also, the average time
the penalty when deciding whether to
tors or judges decide which cases to
to reoffending was shorter (135 versus 227
offend (see Von Hirsch et al., 1999). It is
transfer.
days) for the transferred youth across
useful to consider, however, each of the
seven offense types (including violent
necessary preconditions for successful
A higher percentage of youth who were
felonies, property offenses, and minor
deterrence in the context of juvenile
tried for robbery in criminal court were
misdemeanors).
offending. A law can act as a deterrent
rearrested (91 percent) than those tried
only if the targeted population is aware
for robbery in juvenile court (73 percent).
Following the same Florida offenders 7
that the law exists and believes that it will
Of youth who were rearrested, those tried
years after the initial study by Bishop et
be enforced.
in the criminal court also were rearrested
al. (1996), Winner et al. (1997) compared
sooner and more often. However, there
transferred versus nontransferred offenders
Redding and Fuller (2004) found that few
were no differences in recidivism rates (in
matched for gender, age, race, and offend­
violent juvenile offenders knew that they
terms of the percent rearrested, rearrest
ing history. They found that the rearrest
could be tried as adults, none thought it
rate, and time to rearrest) for burglary
rates were higher and the time to reof­
would happen to them, and few thought
offenders tried in the criminal court versus
fending shorter (adjusting for time resid­
they would face serious punishment.
those tried in juvenile court. The findings
ing in the community following release
Moreover, few reported thinking about
on robbery offenders suggest that crimi­
from incarceration) among those who had
the possibility of getting caught when
nal court processing alone, irrespective of
been transferred to criminal court. The
they committed the offense. Indeed, it
whether youth are incarcerated in juvenile
exception was transferred property felons
seems that offenders generally underesti­
or adult facilities, produces a higher
who had lower recidivism rates than simi­
mate the risk of arrest (Robinson and Dar-
recidivism rate. This finding is empha­
lar offenders who remained under juvenile
ley, 2004). Juveniles’ psychosocial imma­
sized by the parallel finding that even
court jurisdiction.
turity, including their tendency to focus
those youth sentenced to probation in
on the short-term benefits of their choices
Myers (2001, 2003) examined the 18­
criminal court had a substantially higher
(Beckman, 2004; Scott, Reppucci, and
month recidivism rates of 494 juvenile
recidivism rate than those incarcerated
Woolard, 1995; Steinberg and Cauffman,
offenders charged with robbery or aggra­
in the juvenile justice system (see also
1996), may reduce the likelihood that they
vated assault in Pennsylvania in 1994,
Mason and Chang, 2001).
will perceive the substantial risk of being
using a statistical model to control for the
arrested or punished as an adult (Schnei­
Juveniles with the highest recidivism rates
possibility that the transferred juveniles
der and Ervin, 1990).
were those who were incarcerated after
were the more serious offenders in the
being tried in the criminal court. The
first place (and therefore more likely to
Specific Deterrence
study indicated that, overall, youth adjudi­
recidivate) or those less amenable to
cated in juvenile court had a 29-percent
treatment in the juvenile system. The
To date, six published studies have been
lower risk of rearrest than those tried in
study controlled for age at referral, race,
conducted to examine the specific deter­
criminal court. Drug offenses were the one
geographical location, school and family
rence effects of transfer. These large-scale
exception. Criminal court adjudication
status, various indices of prior offending
studies indicate that youth tried in adult
substantially reduced the risk of rearrest
history, use of a weapon, and various
criminal court generally have greater
in those cases.
case-processing variables. Youth who
recidivism rates after release than those
were judicially transferred to criminal
tried in juvenile court. It is unclear, how­
Bishop and colleagues (1996) compared
court were twice as likely to be rearrest­
ever, whether transfer affects recidivism
the 1-year recidivism rate of 2,738 juvenile
ed, and were rearrested more quickly (and
for nonviolent property or drug offenders.
offenders transferred to criminal court in
often for more serious offenses) upon
Florida in 1987 with a matched sample of
Fagan (1996) examined the recidivism
their return to the community, than youth
2,738 juvenile offenders who had not been
rates of 800 randomly selected 15- and
who were retained in the juvenile justice
transferred. Florida relies almost exclu­
16-year-old juvenile offenders charged
system during the same period.
sively on prosecutorial transfer. These
with robbery or burglary during 1981–82.
transfer decisions are largely offense-driv­
Finally, two recent large-scale studies fund­
Controlling for eight variables (race, gen­
en and made soon after arrest, before the
ed by OJJDP are particularly informative:
der, age at first offense, prior offenses,
4
Recent OJJDP-Funded
career into adulthood—a pivotal policy
month placements in highly secure juve­
Studies
concern” (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005:64).
nile correctional facilities designed for
Moreover, the data “include cases trans­
high- and medium-risk offenders) and
Lanza-Kaduce and colleagues (2005) con­
ferred in 1995 and 1996, after the ‘get
eight adult prisons in Florida (mostly
ducted a second Florida study that includ­
tough’ idea was fully entrenched in the
youthful offender facilities designed to
ed 950 young adult offenders.4 Half of the
American culture and after prosecutorial
house young adults up to age 24), with
offenders had been prosecutorially trans­
transfer had been used in Florida for a
youth at different stages in serving their
ferred to the criminal court in 1995 or
long time” (Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005:65).
sentence. Of the 71 youth who had been
1996 for offenses they had committed as
transferred to the adult system, 63 also
juveniles; the other half had remained in
Like the earlier Florida studies, this study
had prior experience in the juvenile sys­
the juvenile system. This resulted in a
found that transferred offenders, particu­
tem. Fifty-eight percent of the youth rated
sample of 475 matched pairs of trans­
larly violent offenders, were significantly
the deep-end juvenile placements as
ferred and retained cases.
more likely to reoffend.
beneficial, 33 percent rated the adult
prison as beneficial, 20 percent rated the
The cases were drawn from six urban and
◆ Overall, 49 percent of the transferred
less restrictive juvenile dispositions (for
rural judicial circuits in Florida that dif­
offenders reoffended, compared with
example, probation, placement in low-
fered considerably in their rates of trans­
35 percent of the retained offenders.
restrictive residential programs) as benefi­
fer. The cases were matched within each
◆ For violent offenses, 24 percent of the
cial, and 12 percent rated adult probation
judicial circuit (thus controlling for geo­
transferred offenders reoffended, com­
as beneficial.
graphical effects in case processing and
pared with 16 percent of the retained
decisionmaking) along seven relevant
offenders.
The youth rated the deep-end juvenile
demographic, criminal history, and
◆ For drug offenses, 11 percent of the
programs the most beneficial largely
offense variables: age, gender, race, num­
transferred offenders reoffended, com­
because these programs provided inten­
ber of previous juvenile referrals, most
pared with 9 percent of the retained
sive, long-term job skills training and
serious prior offense, offense, and number
offenders.
treatment. In addition, the lengthier peri­
of charges. In addition, a subset of this
od of incarceration gave them more time
group, consisting of 315 best matched
◆ For property offenses, 14 percent of the to consider their futures and the conse­
pairs, were further matched according to
transferred offenders reoffended, com­
quences of reoffending, suggesting that
an offense seriousness index created by
pared with 10 percent of the retained
the longer sanctions had an impact (Lane
examining local records to obtain data
offenders.
et al., 2002). But “[o]ften when adult sanc­
about 12 other case characteristics: prior
The results were virtually identical for the
tions were perceived as being beneficial,
juvenile referrals, multiple charges at
subset of 315 best matched pairs. In addi­
the benefit was not attributed to anything
arrest, multiple incidents involved in the
tion, researchers conducted paired-com­
gained from the disposition. Rather, many
case, charge consolidation, legal problems
parison analyses in which each matched
youth indicated that they expected to
during case processing, gang involvement,
pair was the unit of analysis. This analysis
remain crime-free because their experi­
codefendants or accomplices, property
classified each pair according to whether
ences in the adult system had been so
loss or damage, victim injury, use of
both offenders reoffended (21 percent of
horrible. Youth who believed the adult
weapons, felony charges, and the presence
cases), only the transferred offender reof­
sanctions would keep them from commit­
of mitigating and aggravating factors. The
fended (29 percent of cases), only the
ting crimes primarily pointed to three rea­
measure of recidivism was the number of
retained offender reoffended (15 percent
sons: pain and denigration, time spent in
offenses committed after youth turned age
of cases), or neither reoffended (36 per­
prison, and fear of future consequences,
18, and data analyses were conducted on
cent of cases).5 Again, the results were
especially tougher sentences. Paradoxically,
the 475 matched pairs, as well as on the
virtually identical for the subgroup of
most of those who said the adult experi­
subset of 315 best matched pairs.
best-matched pairs. However, the study
ence was negative also mentioned pain,
failed to replicate the 1997 Florida study
denigration, and/or anger, but they gave
Transferred Juveniles More
finding of lower recidivism rates among
these as reasons why the adult disposi­
Likely To Offend
transferred property offenders (Winner
tions had made matters worse. Others
et al., 1997).
attributed a negative impact to adult
The Lanza-Kaduce study expands on the
sanctions because they ‘learned more
earlier Florida studies (i.e., Bishop et al.,
In addition to the recidivism study, the
crime while there’” (Lane et al., 2002:444).
1996; Winner et al., 1997). It includes reof­
Florida research group conducted detailed
While a substantial minority of the youth
fense types and a detailed matching on
interviews with 144 serious male offend­
said that prison had taught them a
relevant case and offense characteristics
ers between the ages of 17 and 20, half of
lesson—declaring that they would not
(see Frazier et al., 1999). Its recidivism data
whom had been transferred and the other
reoffend because they did not want to
draws on information from two different
half of whom were retained in the juvenile
endure the pain of imprisonment again—
State databases. To reduce a potential lack
system (Bishop and Frazier, 2000; Lane et
61 percent said that prison had either no
of comparability in recidivism measures
al., 2002). Eighty-three percent had more
impact or a negative impact on their
between transfers and juvenile court
than one prior arrest, 60 percent began
behaviors (Lane et al., 2002:448). Overall,
retainees due to differences in decision-
offending before the age of 14, and 47 per­
the “findings call into question the prac­
making and recordkeeping between the
cent had committed a violent offense as
tice of [incarcerating juveniles in adult
two systems, it examines offending after
their most serious current offense. Inter­
prison and] ‘skipping’ the deep-end juve­
age 18. “The focus on adult recidivism . . .
views were conducted in four “deep-end”
nile programs when sentencing youth for
captures the persistence of a criminal
juvenile correctional institutions (i.e., 9–36
serious crimes” (p. 452).
5
In another OJJDP-sponsored study, Fagan
of being reincarcerated. The pattern of
pattern of findings. For nonviolent proper-
and colleagues (2003) extended and largely
findings was even stronger for first-time
ty offenders, the effects of transfer remain
replicated previous research (Fagan,
offenders. For drug offense rearrests, how-
unclear, with one study finding that trans-
1996). This time, they examined the time­
ever, the results were reversed, with the
fer had no effect on recidivism (Fagan,
at-risk (i.e., residing in the community)
juveniles tried in juvenile court having a
1996) and another finding that transfer
recidivism rates for 2,382 15- and 16-year­
31-percent greater likelihood of rearrest
decreased recidivism (Winner et al., 1997),
old juveniles charged in 1992 or 1993 with
for drug offenses. Finally, the study found
but with two studies (conducted in the
robbery, burglary, or assault. The 2003
that the differences in recidivism were
same jurisdiction as the first two studies)
study used a larger sample drawn from
unrelated to periods of incarceration in
finding that it increased recidivism (Fagan
more counties in each State as well as
adult versus juvenile facilities. Thus,
et al., 2003; Lanza-Kaduce et al., 2005). In
more detailed measures of important vari­
incarceration in adult prisons “does not
addition, with respect to drug offenders,
ables, such as offenders’ prior juvenile
seem to be responsible for the crimino­
two studies (Fagan, 1996; Fagan et al.,
record. The study compared those
genic effect of adult court processing”
2003) found decreased recidivism rates
charged in selected counties in northern
(Fagan et al., 2003:66).
among those tried in the criminal court.
New Jersey, where such cases originate in
These findings fully replicate those of the
the juvenile court, with those charged in
earlier Fagan (1996) study, except with
matched counties in New York, where
respect to property offenses. The 1996
Challenges for Future
such cases originate in the criminal court.
study found no difference in recidivism
The New York and New Jersey counties are
Research
rates for burglary, whereas the 2003 study
contiguous, and part of a large metropolitan
found that criminal court processing
Important challenges for future
area that shares common demographic,
research are to determine: (1)
increased the recidivism rates for property
economic, and social characteristics as
whether transfer differentially impacts
offenses.
well as similar criminogenic influences
recidivism as a function of offense
and crime rate characteristics. Thus, the
type (violent offenses, property
study design allows for comparison of
Transfer Found To Increase
offenses, drug offenses), and (2)
recidivism rates as a function of whether
Recidivism
what features of the criminal justice
cases are processed in juvenile court or
In sum, to date, six large-scale studies
system increase recidivism, an
criminal court, without the sample selec­
have been conducted on the specific
important question for policymaking.
tion problems inherent in designs that
These challenges raise such ques­
deterrent effects of transfer. These studies
compare cases retained in the juvenile
tions as the following:
used large sample sizes (between 494 and
court with those transferred in a single
5,476 participants), different methodolo­
◆ Can changes be made in the
jurisdiction wherein decisionmakers
gies (natural experiment across two juris-
criminal court processing and adult
decide which cases to transfer. All cases
dictions, matched groups within the same
system sanctions of juveniles to
were followed for a 7-year period until
jurisdictions, or statistical controls), mul­
make them less detrimental? What
2000, by which time almost all of the
tiple measures of recidivism, and were
are they?
offenders had served their sentences and
conducted in five jurisdictions (Florida,
had spent at least 2 years living in the
New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Penn­
◆ In what ways should the juvenile
community. The study statistically con­
sylvania) having different types of transfer
justice system guard against those
trolled for a variety of relevant demo­
laws (automatic, prosecutorial, or judicial).
features of the criminal justice
graphics (age, gender, ethnicity), case and
The strong consistency in results across
system that serve to increase
offense characteristics (for example, most
the studies is all the more compelling
recidivism?
serious charge, weapon use, whether
given that they used different samples
◆ How can States’ blended sentencing
detained, case length), criminal history
and methodologies, thereby providing
systems, which allow the juvenile
variables (age at first arrest, number of
a degree of convergent validity for the
courts to impose adult sentences in
prior arrests, previous incarcerations),
findings. All of the studies found higher
certain cases (see Redding and
and sentence length. It used statistical
recidivism rates among offenders who had
Howell, 2000), incorporate the best
techniques that analyzed recidivism in
been transferred to criminal court, com­
features of the juvenile and criminal
different ways (first rearrest, severity of
pared with those who were retained in the
justice systems, while avoiding the
rearrest charges, time until rearrest, likeli­
juvenile system. This held true even for
negative effects of criminal justice
hood of subsequent incarceration).
offenders who only received a sentence
system processing?
of probation from the criminal court.
Greater Likelihood of
Thus, the extant research provides sound
Rearrest
evidence that transferring juvenile offend­
ers to the criminal court does not engen­
The study found a 100-percent greater
der community protection by reducing
likelihood of rearrest for a violent offense
recidivism. On the contrary, transfer
and a 47-percent greater likelihood of rear­
substantially increases recidivism. A
rest for a property offense, among the
recent review of the extant research on
New York juveniles whose cases were
transfer conducted by the Centers for
processed in the criminal court than for
Disease Central arrived at the same
the New Jersey juveniles. They also had
conclusion (McGowan et al., 2007). Only
a greater number of rearrests for such
two apparent exceptions challenge this
offenses and a 26-percent greater chance
6
Why Do Juveniles Tried
Many experience the court process
of whom had been tried in adult criminal
as Adults Have Higher
not so much as a condemnation of
court, Kupchik (2007) found that youths
their behavior as a condemnation
in juvenile facilities reported far more pos­
Recidivism Rates?
of them. Unlike the juvenile court,
itive, mentoring-style staff-inmate interac­
Experts (see Bazemore and Umbreit, 1995;
the criminal court failed to communi­
tions than did the youths in adult facili­
Myers, 2003; Thomas and Bishop, 1984;
cate that young offenders retain
ties. However, youths in adult facilities
Winner et al., 1997) have identified several
some fundamental worth. What the
reported having greater access to counsel­
possible explanations for the higher
youths generally heard was that they
ing and educational services, perhaps
recidivism rates of violent juvenile offend­
were being punished not only
because of the larger size of the adult
ers tried in criminal court as compared to
because their behavior was bad but
facilities.
those adjudicated in juvenile court:
also because they were personifica­
Bishop and Frazier’s recent Florida study
tions of their behavior. Far from
◆ The stigmatization and other negative
(2000) vividly portrays the differences
viewing the criminal court and its
effects of labeling juveniles as convicted
between juvenile and adult correctional
officers as legitimate, the juvenile
felons.
facilities. They found that the juvenile
offenders we interviewed saw them
correctional institutions were treatment-
◆ The sense of resentment and injustice
more often as duplicitous and manip­
oriented and adhered to therapeutic mod­
juveniles feel about being tried and
ulative, malevolent in intent, and
els of rehabilitation (Bishop and Frazier,
punished as adults.
indifferent to their needs. It was com­
2000:255). “Compared to the criminal jus­
◆
mon for them to experience a sense
The learning of criminal mores and
tice system, the juvenile system seems to
of injustice and, then, to condemn
behavior while incarcerated with adult
be more reintegrative in practice and
the condemners (Bishop and Frazier,
offenders.
effect” (Bishop and Frazier, 2000:265).
2000:263).
◆ The decreased focus on rehabilitation
Youths in juvenile facilities had positive
and family support in the adult system.
These findings are consistent with those
feelings about the staff, who they felt
of Redding and Fuller (2004), who found
cared about them and taught them appro­
A felony conviction also results in the loss
that juveniles tried as adults clearly felt
priate behaviors. Most of the juveniles
of a number of civil rights and privileges
that transfer laws were unfair. Many felt
incarcerated in juvenile facilities felt confi­
(see Redding, 2003), further reducing the
that their juvenile status and immaturity
dent that they would not reoffend, often
opportunities for employment and com­
dictated that they should be tried as juve­
crediting the staff with helping them make
munity reintegration.
niles, despite the serious crimes they had
this positive change. Conversely, only a
Findings from several studies (Fagan,
committed. They also did not understand
third of the juveniles in adult prisons said
1996; Fagan, Kupchik and Liberman, 2003)
why the legal system was trying them as
that they would not reoffend.
show that criminal court processing
adults, and they saw themselves as being
Juveniles in adult prison reported that
alone, even without the imposition of any
treated differently from other similarly
much of their time was spent learning
criminal sentence, increases recidivism.
situated juveniles. Both perceptions
criminal behavior from the inmates and
Juveniles’ sense of injustice at criminal
contributed to their sense of unfairness,
proving how tough they were. They also
court processing may cause them to react
perhaps leading to greater cynicism about
were much more fearful of being victim­
defiantly by reoffending, and it may further
the legal system as a result of being incar­
ized than they had been when incarcerat­
harden an emergent criminal self-concept
cerated (see Piquero et al., 2005).
ed in juvenile facilities, and more than 30
(see Sherman, 1993; Thomas and Bishop,
Some studies indicate that prison incar­
percent had been assaulted or had wit­
1984; Winner et al., 1997). “The concept
ceration “does not seem to be responsible
nessed assaults by prison staff. Indeed,
of fairness appears to be an important
for the criminogenic effect of adult court
Beyer (1997) paints a bleak picture of life
variable in an individual’s perception of
processing” (Fagan, Kupchik, and Liber­
in adult prison for juveniles, who are at
sentence severity and its subsequent rela­
man, 2003:66). One reason for the
greater risk for suicide, as well as for
tionship to future recidivism” (Corrado et
increased recidivism of these offenders,
physical and sexual abuse from older
al., 2003:183). Furthermore, it appears that
however, might be the reduced opportuni­
inmates. As compared with those in juve­
many adolescents with conduct disorders
ties for meaningful rehabilitation in adult
nile facilities, juveniles incarcerated in
already have a sense of having been dealt
prison. Forst, Fagan, and Vivona’s 1989
adult prison are eight times more likely to
an unfair hand by authority figures (Cham­
study, for example, found that youth in
commit suicide, five times more likely to
berlain, 1998). Bishop and Frazier (2000)
juvenile facilities gave higher marks than
be sexually assaulted, and almost twice as
interviewed 95 serious and chronic juve­
youth in adult facilities to the available
likely to be attacked with a weapon by
nile offenders in Florida, roughly half of
treatment and case management services.
inmates or beaten by staff (Beyer, 1997).
whom were transferred to the criminal
Youth in juvenile detention described
Because juveniles in adult prisons are
court and were incarcerated in adult cor­
these services as helpful in providing
exposed to a criminal culture in which
rectional facilities, and half of whom had
counseling, enabling them to obtain needed
inmates commit crimes against each
been adjudicated in the juvenile court and
services, encouraging participation in pro­
other, these institutions may socialize
were incarcerated in maximum-security
grams, teaching the consequences of rule
delinquent juveniles into true career crim­
juvenile facilities. According to the
breaking, and deepening their understand­
inals. In an older study about life in prison
authors, many of the juveniles felt a
ing of their problems. Similarly, in a recent
(Eisikovits and Baizerman, 1983), violent
strong sense of injustice about being tried
study comparing the experiences of youths
juvenile offenders reported that their daily
as adults:
in adult versus juvenile correctional
survival required finding ways to fit into
facilities in a large Northeastern State, all
the inmate culture, dealing with difficult
7
and authoritarian relationships with adult
the total number of juvenile court cases
has, however, produced the unintended
inmates, and adjusting to the institution by
decreased by only 9 percent), apparently
effect of increasing recidivism, particular­
accepting violence as a part of daily life
due, in part, to research disseminated
ly in violent offenders, and thereby of pro­
and, thus, becoming even more violent.
showing the counter-deterrent effects of
moting life-course criminality (Scott,
transfer (Bishop, 2004). Moreover, in the
2000). But, if it was indeed true that trans­
Finally, Redding and Fuller (2004) found
last several years, some States have
fer laws had a deterrent effect on juvenile
that juveniles whose jail or prison experi­
reduced the scope of transfer laws to
crime, then some of these offenders would
ences were worse than they had expected,
make fewer juvenile offenders eligible for
not have offended in the first place.
and those who reported witnessing or
prosecutorial or judicial transfer (Bishop,
Although the limited extant research falls
experiencing violence while incarcerated,
2004; Griffin, 2003).
far short of providing definitive conclu­
were less likely to say that their incarcera­
sions, the bulk of the empirical evidence
tion would deter them from committing
Yet in Florida, for example, the data show
suggests that transfer laws, as currently
crimes in the future. This finding raises
that the transferred cases were generally
implemented, probably have little general
the possibility that incarceration in adult
no more serious, and sometimes were less
deterrent effect on would-be juvenile
facilities may have brutalizing effects on
serious, than the cases retained in the
offenders.
juveniles, which may partly account for
juvenile justice system (Lanza-Kaduce,
their increased recidivism. (The term
Frazier, and Bishop, 1999). Forty-three per­
“brutalization effect” describes the finding
cent of the 1,100 juveniles incarcerated in
Notes
that homicide rates in a State often
adult prisons for offenses committed
1. Seventeen States currently have “blend­
increase after an execution (Bowers,
when they were 15 years old or younger
ed sentencing” laws (see Redding and
1998), perhaps because executions model
had not previously been committed to a
Howell, 2000) that permit the criminal
and communicate that violence is an
juvenile justice program (Annino, 2000).
court, after its adjudication of the youth­
acceptable and psychologically cathartic
Thus, the juvenile justice system never
ful offender, to impose juvenile sentences
alternative.) Likewise, juveniles’ brutal
had an opportunity to rehabilitate these
in certain cases. Fifteen States permit the
experiences in adult prison may teach the
youth before they were transferred to the
juvenile court to impose limited criminal
wrong lessons about the acceptability and
adult system, despite the fact that serious
sanctions (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006).
psychological benefits of criminal con­
juvenile offenders in Florida report that
duct, particularly violent crime, while also
intensive juvenile placements are relative­
2. In addition, brochures were sent to pub­
contributing to their sense of being treat­
ly more beneficial than either adult prison
lic schools announcing the law and the
ed unfairly, both of which may increase
or mild juvenile sanctions (Lane et al.,
legal risks juvenile offenders faced, and
recidivism. Further research is needed on
2002).
juvenile court judges warned youth about
this issue.
the risks of committing violent offenses (S.
But Florida is not unique in transferring
Singer, 2004, personal communication).
first-time offenders to the criminal court.
Implications for
Transfer laws, particularly automatic
3. These States included Arizona,
Policymakers and
transfer laws, often target first-time
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida,
Practitioners
offenders, even though they do not pose
Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana,
The research findings on juvenile transfer
the greatest recidivism risk or threat to
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Vermont, Virginia,
have the potential to impact both policy
community safety. The frequency of
and Wyoming.
and practice. In a recent study, Hensl and
offending, instead of the seriousness of
4. This is the most recent in a series of
Redding (2005) found that juvenile court
the first offense, best predicts overall
studies conducted by the Florida research
judges who were knowledgeable about the
recidivism and the risk for committing a
group. These studies, which have been
ineffectiveness of transfer in reducing
subsequent violent offense (see Bishop,
funded by the Florida Department of Jus­
recidivism were somewhat less likely to
2004; Piquero, 2000; Redding, 1997). To
tice and OJJDP, are part of an ongoing
transfer juvenile offenders to the criminal
best achieve reductions in recidivism, the
research program, beginning in the mid­
court. This finding suggests that educat­
overall number of juvenile offenders trans­
1980s, studying the effects of transfer in
ing judges, prosecutors, court personnel,
ferred to the criminal justice system
Florida. For an overview of the Florida
and legislators about the research on
should be minimized. Moreover, those
research program, see Frazier et al., 1999.
transfer may reduce the number of cases
who are transferred should be the chronic
5. The total does not equal 100 because of
transferred to criminal court or the num­
repeat offenders—rather than first-time
rounding.
ber of transferred cases that result in
offenders—particularly in cases where the
criminal sanctions. The Miami-Dade Coun­
first-time offense is a violent offense.
ty Public Defender’s Office developed the
References
Juvenile Sentencing Advocacy Project,
Conclusion
Annino, P.G. 2000. Children in adult
which produced a 350-percent increase in
prisons: A call for a moratorium. Florida
the number of transferred cases receiving
Most practitioners would agree, consis­
State University Law Review 28:471–90.
a juvenile rather than an adult sanction
tent with the extant research, that it is
from criminal court judges (Mason, 2000).
important that the juvenile courts’
Bazemore, G., and Umbriet, M. 1995.
In Florida, which has had some of the
response to juvenile offenders be calibrated
Rethinking the sanctioning function in
most aggressive transfer policies in the
to have sufficient effectiveness as a deter­
juvenile court: Retributive or restorative
Nation, the number of juveniles prosecut­
rent while not being overly punitive. The
responses to youth crime. Crime and
ed in the criminal court decreased by two-
practice of transferring juveniles for trial
Delinquency 41:296–316.
thirds between 1996 and 2003 (whereas
and sentencing in adult criminal court
8
Beckman, M. 2004. Crime, culpability, and
Fagan, J.A. 1996. The comparative advan­
Kupchik, A. 2007. The correctional experi­
the adolescent brain. Science 305:596–99.
tage of juvenile versus criminal court
ences of youth in adult and juvenile pris­
sanctions on recidivism among adolescent
ons. Justice Quarterly 24:247–70.
Beyer, M. 1997. Experts for juveniles at
felony offenders. Law and Policy
risk of adult sentences. In More than meets
Kupchik, A., Fagan, J., and Liberman, A.
18:77–113.
the eye: Rethinking assessment, competency
2003. Punishment, proportionality, and
and sentencing for a harsher era of juvenile
Fagan, J., Kupchik, A., and Liberman, A.
jurisdictional transfer of adolescent
justice, edited by P. Puritz, A. Capozello,
2003. Be careful what you wish for: The
offenders: A test of the leniency gap
and W. Shang, 1–22. Washington, DC:
comparative impacts of juvenile versus
hypothesis. Stanford Law and Policy
American Bar Association, Juvenile Justice
criminal court sanctions on recidivism
Review 14:57–83.
Center.
among adolescent felony offenders. Public
Lane, J., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C.E.,
Law Research Paper No. 03–61. New York:
Bishop, D.M. 2000. Juvenile offenders in
and Bishop, D.M. 2002. Adult versus juve­
Columbia University Law School.
the adult criminal justice system. In Crime
nile sanctions: Voices of incarcerated
and justice: A review of research, vol. 27,
Fagan, J., and Zimring, F.E., eds. 2000. The
youths. Crime and Delinquency 48:431–55.
edited by M. Tonry, 81–165. Chicago, IL:
changing borders of juvenile justice: Trans­
Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C.E., and Bishop,
University of Chicago Press.
fer of adolescents to the criminal court.
D.M. 1999. Juvenile transfers in Florida:
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bishop, D.M. 2004. Injustice and irrational­
The worst of the worst? University of
ity in contemporary youth policy. Crimi­
Forst, M., Fagan, J., and Vivona, S.T. 1989.
Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy
nology and Public Policy 3:633–44.
Youth in prisons and training schools:
10:277–312.
Perceptions and consequences of the
Bishop, D.M., and Frazier, C.E. 2000.
Lanza-Kaduce, L., Lane, J., Bishop, D.M.,
treatment-custody dichotomy. Juvenile
Consequences of transfer. In The changing
and Frazier, C.E. 2005. Juvenile offenders
and Family Court Journal 40:1–14.
borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of ado­
and adult felony recidivism: The impact
lescents to the criminal court, edited by J.
Frazier, C.E., Bishop, D.M., Lanza-Kaduce,
of transfer. Journal of Crime and Justice
Fagan and F.E. Zimring, 227–76. Chicago,
L., and Marvasti, A. 1999. Juveniles in
28:59–77.
IL: University of Chicago Press.
criminal court: Past and current research
Lee, D.S., and McCrary, J. 2005. Crime,
from Florida. Quinnipiac Law Review
Bishop, D.M., Frazier, C.E., Lanza-Kaduce,
punishment, and myopia. Working Paper
18:573–96.
L., and Winner, L. 1996. The transfer of
11491. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
juveniles to criminal court: Does it make
Fritsch, E.J., Caeti, T.J., and Hemmens, C.
Economic Research.
a difference? Crime and Delinquency
1996. Spare the needle but not the punish­
Levitt, S.D. 1998. Juvenile crime and pun­
42:171–91.
ment: The incarceration of waived youth
ishment. Journal of Political Economy 106:
in adult prisons. Crime and Delinquency
Bowers, W.C. 1998. Deterrence, brutaliza­
1156–85.
42:593–609.
tion, and the death penalty: Another
Mason, C.A. 2000. Juvenile sentencing
examination of Oklahoma’s return to capi­
Glassner, B., Ksander, M., Berg, B., and
advocacy project: Evaluation report. Miami,
tal punishment. Criminology 36:711–33.
Johnson, B.D. 1983. A note on the deterrent
FL: Miami-Dade County Public Defender’s
effect of juvenile versus adult jurisdiction.
Chamberlain, P. 1998. Family connections:
Office.
Social Problems. 31:219–21.
A treatment foster care model for adoles­
Mason, C.A., and Chang, S. 2001. Rearrest
cents with delinquency. Eugene, OR:
Griffin, P. 2003. Trying and sentencing juve­
rates among youth incarcerated in adult
Northwest Media.
niles as adults: An analysis of state transfer
court. Miami, FL: Miami-Dade County
and blended sentencing laws. Pittsburgh,
Corrado, R.R., Cohen, I.M., Glackman, W.,
Public Defender’s Office.
PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
and Odgers, C. 2003. Serious and violent
McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A.,
young offenders’ decisions to recidivate:
Hensl, K.B., and Redding, R.E. 2005
Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R.,
An assessment of five sentencing models.
(March). The relationship among juvenile
Moscicki, E., Price, L., Snyder, S., Tuma, F.,
Crime and Delinquency 49:179–200.
court judges’ personal characteristics and
Lowry, J., Briss, P., Cory, S., and Stone, G.
attitudes, juvenile offender characteristics,
Eisikovits, Z., and Baizerman, M. 1983.
2007. Effects on violence of laws and poli­
and judicial transfer decisions. Paper pre­
“Doin’ time”: Violent youth in a juvenile
cies facilitating the transfer of juveniles
sented at the American Psychology-Law
facility and in an adult prison. Journal of
from the juvenile justice system to the
Society annual conference. La Jolla, CA.
Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabil­
Adult System. American Journal of Preven­
itation 6(3):5–20.
Jensen, E.L., and Metsger, L.K. 1994. A test
tive Medicine 32: S7–S28.
of the deterrent effect of legislative waiver
Elder, R.W., Shults, R.A., Sleet, D.A.,
Mocan, H.N., and Rees, D.I. 2005. Economic
on violent juvenile crime. Crime and Delin­
Nicholas, J.L., Thompson, R.S., and Rajab,
conditions, deterrence, and juvenile
quency 40:96–104.
W. 2004. Effectiveness of mass media cam­
crime: Evidence from micro data. Ameri­
paigns for reducing drinking and driving
Johnson, S.D., and Bowers, K.J. 2003.
can Law and Economics Review 7:319–49.
and alcohol-involved crashes: A systemic
Opportunity is in the eye of the beholder:
Myers, D.L. 2001. Excluding violent youths
review. American Journal of Preventive
The role of publicity in crime prevention.
from juvenile court: The effectiveness of
Medicine 27(1):57–65.
Criminology and Public Policy 2:497–524.
legislative waiver. New York: LFB Scholarly.
9
Myers, D.L. 2003. The recidivism of violent
Redding, R.E., and Howell, J.C. 2000.
Smith, D.A., and Gartin, P.R. 1989. Specify­
youths in juvenile and adult court: A con­
Blended sentencing in American juvenile
ing specific deterrence: The influence of
sideration of selection bias. Youth Violence
courts. In The changing borders of juvenile
arrest on future criminal activity. Ameri­
and Juvenile Justice 1:79–101.
justice: Transfer of adolescents to the crimi­
can Sociological Review 54:94–105.
nal court, edited by J. Fagan and F.E. Zim­
Myers, D.L. 2005. Boys among men: Trying
Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 2006. Juve­
ring, 145–80. Chicago, IL: University of
and sentencing juveniles as adults.
nile offenders and victims: 2006 national
Chicago Press.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
Redding, R.E., and Mrozoski, B.S. 2005.
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Peterson-Badali, M., Ruck, M.D., and
Adjudicatory and dispositional decision-
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Koegl, C.J. 2001. Youth court dispositions:
making in juvenile justice. In Juvenile
Prevention.
Perceptions of Canadian juvenile offend­
delinquency: Prevention, assessment, and
ers. International Journal of Offender
Steinberg, L., and Cauffman, E. 1996.
intervention, edited by K. Heilbrun, N.
Therapy and Comparative Criminology
Maturity of judgment in adolescence:
Goldstein, and R. Redding, 232–56. New
45:593–605.
Psychosocial factors in adolescent deci­
York: Oxford University Press.
sionmaking. Law and Human Behavior
Piquero, A.R. 2000. Assessing the relation­
Risler, E.A., Sweatman, T., and Nackerud, L.
20:249–72.
ships between gender, chronicity, serious­
1998. Evaluating the Georgia legislative
ness, and offense skewness in criminal
Steiner, B., and Hemmens, C. 2003
waiver’s effectiveness in deterring juvenile
offending. Journal of Criminal Justice
(spring). Juvenile waiver 2003: Where are
crime. Research on Social Work Practice
28:103–16.
we now? Juvenile and Family Court Journal
8:657–67.
54(2):1–24.
Piquero, A.R., Fagan, J., Mulvey, E.P., Stein­
Robinson, P.H., and Darley, J.M. 2004. Does
berg, L., and Odgers, C. 2005. Developmen­
Steiner, B., and Wright, E. 2006. Assessing
criminal law deter? A behavioral science
tal trajectories of legal socialization
the relative effects of state direct file
investigation. Oxford Journal of Legal Stud­
among serious adolescent offenders. Jour­
waiver laws on violent juvenile crime:
ies 24(2):173–205.
nal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Deterrence on irrelevance? Journal of
96:267–98.
Sanborn, J.B. 2003. Hard choices or obvi­
Criminal Law and Criminology 96:1451–77.
ous ones: Developing policy for excluding
Pratt, T.C., and Cullen, F.T. 2002. Assessing
Thomas, C.W., and Bishop, D.M. 1984. The
youth from juvenile court. Youth Violence
macro-level predictors and theories of
impact of legal sanctions on delinquency:
and Juvenile Justice 1:198–214.
crime: A meta-analysis. In crime and jus­
A longitudinal comparison of labeling and
tice: A review of research, vol. 32, edited
Schneider, A.L., and Ervin, L. 1990. Specific
deterrence theories. Journal of Criminal
by M. Tonry, 373–450. Chicago, IL: Univer­
deterrence, rational choice, and decision
Law and Criminology 75:1222–45.
sity of Chicago Press.
heuristics: Applications in juvenile justice.
Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
Social Science Quarterly 71:585–601.
Redding, R.E. 1997. Juveniles transferred
Services. 1996. Juvenile murder in Virginia:
to criminal court: Legal reform proposals
Scott, E.S. 2000. The legal construction of
A study of arrests and convictions. Rich­
based on social science research. Utah
adolescence. Hofstra Law Review
mond, VA: Virginia Department of Criminal
Law Review 3:709–97.
29:547–98.
Justice Services.
Redding, R.E. 2003. The effects of adjudi­
Scott, E.S., Reppucci, N.D., and Woolard,
Von Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A.E., Burney, E.,
cating and sentencing juveniles as adults:
J.L. 1995. Evaluating adolescent decision
and Wikstrom, P.O. 1999. Criminal deter­
research and policy implications. Youth
making in legal contexts. Law and Human
rence and sentence severity: An analysis of
Violence and Juvenile Justice 1:128–55.
Behavior 19:221–44.
recent research. Oxford, England: Hart.
Redding, R.E. 2005. Adult punishment for
Sherman, L.W. 1993. Defiance, deterrence,
Wilson, J.Q., and Herrnstein, R.J. 1985.
juvenile offenders: Does it reduce crime?
and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal
Crime and human nature. New York: Simon
In Handbook on Children, Culture and
sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and
and Schuster.
Violence, edited by Nancy Dowd, Dorothy
Delinquency 30:445–73.
Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D.M.,
Singer, and Robin Fretwell Wilson, 375–95.
Singer, S.I., and McDowall, D. 1988. Crimi­
and Frazier, C.E. 1997. The transfer of juve­
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
nalizing delinquency: The deterrent effects
niles to criminal court: Reexamining
Redding, R.E., and Fuller, E.J. 2004 (sum­
of the New York juvenile offender law. Law
recidivism over the long term. Crime and
mer). What do juvenile offenders know
and Society Review 22:521–35.
Delinquency 43:548–63.
about being tried as adults?: Implications
for deterrence. Juvenile and Family Court
Journal 35–45.
10
This Bulletin was prepared under contract
Acknowledgments
number 2005F–065 from the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),
Richard E. Redding, J.D., Ph.D., is professor of law at Chapman University School
U.S. Department of Justice.
of Law. Portions of this bulletin were adapted with the permission of the publisher
from Redding (2005:375–94). The author would like to thank Charles Frazier and
Points of view or opinions expressed in this
Aaron Kupchik for their helpful comments and editorial suggestions.
document are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily represent the official position
or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department
of Justice.
Share With Your Colleagues
Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and
Prevention is a component of the Office of
reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP
Justice Programs, which also includes the
and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as
Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of
how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP
Justice Statistics; the Community Capacity
materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and
Development Office; the National Institute of
questions to:
Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and
the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing,
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and
Publication Reprint/Feedback
Tracking (SMART).
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849–6000
800–851–3420
301–519–5600 (fax)
Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov
11
U.S. Department of Justice
PRESORTED STANDARD
Office of Justice Programs
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
*NCJ~220595*
DOJ/OJJDP
PERMIT NO. G–91

Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Bulletin
NCJ 220595